Identity Configurations

Identities can be formed on multiple levels, such as the regional, national and European and they can differ in their strength and combination with other levels (Brigevich, 2012; Hooghe & Marks, 2005b; Risse, 2010). For the purposes of studying how various territorial levels coexist, each of these individual levels has to be conceptualized in respect to their inclusiveness or exclusiveness.

Derived from studies of Risse (2010) and Brigevich (2011, 2012) seven identity configurations are defined in a Table 2 below. The most recent study of Brigevich (2012) uses eight identity configurations ranging from the local level to nested identity. Nevertheless, her research rather focuses on the character of multiple identities and thus does not include European identity as a separate exclusive category. For this thesis, Brigevich’s (2012) original configurations were adapted to reflect all main identity levels studied. Thus, local level was discharged, as it is not the subject of this study, and European level was added creating altogether seven identity configurations.

In order to identify social identity types, question nr. 2 from ISSP survey will be used: ‘How close do you feel to your county (2b), to your country (2c) and to your continent (2d)?’. The strength of attachment to various levels of identities is measured on a 4-point scale ranging from not close at all to very close. Respondents who feel very close or close to all levels will be classified as having nested identity. Inversely, respondents who feel not close at all or not close to all territorial levels belong to the unattached category.

Respondents who are very close or close to their region but not to the country or European levels are coded as regional and respondents who feel only very close or close to

their country have national identity. Similarly, respondents that are close or very close to Europe but no other levels are categorized as holding European identity.

Finally, respondents who are very close or close to both their regions and their country and not very close or not close at all to Europe, hold regional-national identity. Likewise, respondents who answered they felt very close or close to both country and Europe, with no or low attachment to the regional level, are coded as national-European identity. The phrasing of the ISSP question enables us to evaluate the strength of the attachment to individual or multiple levels (Brigevich, 2012).

Table 2: Identity Configurations

Identity Type Description

Nested Identity Multiple identity characterized by attachment to all territorial levels

European Identity Exclusive identity, attachment to Europe with no

attachment to other levels National-European

Identity Type of multiple identity with strong attachment to both national and European level

National Identity Exclusive identity; strong attachment towards the nation,

with weak or no attachment to other levels Regional-National

Identity

Type of multiple identity; attachment to both region and nation

Regional Identity Exclusive identity with attachment towards the region

only, weak or no relation to other levels

Unattached Very weak or no feeling of attachment to any level

Additionally, identity structures can be also assessed in terms of how they fit together (Brigevich, 2012), in terms of inclusiveness and exclusiveness, which broadens the scope of the above classification. Previous studies have based their criteria on a so called ‘Moreno Question’ derived from the research of Moreno et Al. (1998). This question is most frequently used in regional identity research and will be utilized for this study as well. ‘Some people think

of themselves first as [country nationality]. Others may think of themselves first as [region]. Which, if any, of the following best describes how you see yourself?’ The answers take form of a bipolar scale that compares respondents’ attachment from region to the state. The respondents are given five options from feeling only attached to region (Exclusive Regional Identity) to feeling attached only to the nation (Exclusive National Identity).

Respondents, who answer that only regional identity or country identity only describe them the best, have the exclusive identity. Respondents who are best described as more regional than country identity, as regional as county identity and more country than regional identity will be coded as having inclusive identity (See Brigevich 2011, 2012).

Evaluating identity constructions based on a survey carries one crucial problem – subjectivity (Brigevich, 2011, 2012; Marks, 1999; Hooghe & Marks, 2005b). The strength of the identity inevitably depends on the respondents’ understanding of the scale and whether they make significant distinctions between very close and close. However, utilizing Likert scale improves the subjectivity issue from for instance Eurobarometer, which uses a 10-point numeric scale for the strength of attachment, in which the scale can be perceived even more arbitrarily. Also, the Moreno question presents a bipolar option to the respondents in which case it explicitly states the exclusivity of the categories, whereas the question evaluating strength does not enforce a choice between the levels. Therefore, these two questions measure similar categories but Moreno Question explicitly poses a choice between the territorial levels for the respondent. Nonetheless, Moreno Question used in the ISSP survey did not include European level and therefore the results of classification will be compared with the attachment to Europe from the measurements of identities on separate levels. This corresponds with the logic of European identity being a secondary one, as established in the Literature review, and in addition will show whether the exclusiveness of Moreno categories will have an impact on respondents’ self-evaluation.